- It is a valid fiat of the topic to characrerize these leaders as done at first

1. Religious + queers are compatible

- Characterization and impact of young queer religious people goes unresponded to

- Difficult to change because you get born into religion in a large number of cases

- Since religion comes before queerness often you get conflict

- Harms bought to you at first: alienation from your community, harms of erasure, spiritual harms of abandonment of God

2. Why is critique not a good thing

- Embracing religion is more likely to reveal the hypocrisy

- Denying the existence of the intersection of religious people and queer people is very very silly

- Creates the harms which they gave at first to begin with

3. Change the movement for the better

- These individuals were likely to be queer so Neg's point contingent on characterization fell

- News coverage was not the main thing: the main benefit was a small scale benefit to a previously underrepresented and erased intersectional group

- The existence of these leaders makes you feel valid in having your cake both ways

- Can't criticize allies? wot

- I can pick and choose parts of theology that I disagree with

- People harmed by religious institutions were most important stakeholders, harmed by this model: Issue here is that queer religious people were NOT the oppressors, they were some of the only people who could understand it

- Still bought you plenty of benefit because neither identity erased each other

- Facilitated healing because you resolved that internal conflict

## Studix

I: Queer religious people have preferenced the religious institutions

- This necessarily informs their priorities and how they construct their identity

- Do not require them to be platformed

1. Is there any positive reform of organized religion

- Interests of queer movement are not sufficiently compelling to these people: pick and choose queerness

- Giving over to religion indicates that they were unlikely to agitate for change

- No reciprocity from organized religion because it isn't enforced, nor is it something they believe in or something they will be convinced of

- Capable of stifling discussion and stultifying

- Can't pick and choose benefits because of aff mechanisms

- Credibility lended by leaders, appearance of hypocrisy afforded by about face turn on religion

- No evidence they would be focussing on the queer aspects of their identity